2015 (10) TMI 1950 - AT - Central Excise

Extension of stay order - Recovery of duty - Matter adjourned on date of hearing - Held that - we grant the extension of stay order and direct the Revenue not to proceed ahead with the recovery, by rejecting the learned DR s contention that there is no stay order in operation as the same is deemed to have been vacated on 20-6-2013. Such type of technicality and procedural objections often raised by the Revenue are not appreciated and have to be rejected at the outset itself inasmuch as non-availability of Bench on 20-6-2013 and the subsequent reservation of order and non-passing of Final order even after the matter has been heard is not in the hands of appellant who cannot be blamed for the same. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of stay order due to delay in passing final order.

Analysis:
The case involves an application for the extension of a stay order that was previously granted. The applicant sought the extension as the final order had not been passed, and the Revenue was adjusting their refund claim against outstanding dues. The Tribunal granted the extension of the stay order, directing the Revenue not to proceed with the recovery. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the stay order was deemed vacated on a specific date, emphasizing that technicalities and procedural objections raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the non-availability of the Bench on a particular date and the delay in passing the final order were not the fault of the appellant, and therefore, the stay order was extended until the final order was passed.

Overall, the Tribunal acknowledged the circumstances leading to the delay in passing the final order and emphasized that the appellant should not be penalized for factors beyond their control. The Tribunal's decision to extend the stay order was based on the principle of fairness and the understanding that procedural delays should not disadvantage the appellant. The Tribunal's ruling highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining the extension of stay orders and emphasizes the need to prioritize substantive justice over technicalities raised by the Revenue.